Subject:
|
Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:55:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
361 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> writes:
> > Just given either (a) or (b) above, I saw that just by answering yes on (b)
> > would mean redundancy if my answer to (a) were yes, as in Todd's second
> > ballot example, because each point, (b) and (c), is a subset of (a), even
> > collectively, after all is said and done. To me, Todd's examples #2 and #5
> > achieve the same result. [...]
>
> Ahh, but #2 and #5 do achieve different results! In #2, the hope is that
> if (a) doesn't pass, then perhaps (b) or (c) still might. In #3, if (a)
> doesn't pass, then that's it...all or nothing.
Yeah, now that you splained it, it does! But it did need splaining then. You
definitely were right to ask. And now, maybe I should recall my vote and alter
it before it's too late. I *can* do that right?
> Most people teetering between #2 and #3 would probably go with #2, figuring
> that partial exclusion is better than no exclusion. But someone who wants
> it to be all-or-nothing would go with #3.
But even if #3 is adopted, all it takes is one flame amidst the very heavy
gasoline vapors and BOOM!
> For this reason, and to agree with Larry once more, "it may be more
> straightforward to present a series of up/down propositions and commentary
> that the broader ones will supercede the narrower ones if passed."[1]
[...]
I liked Lar's idea too. Could it be that we should adopt Lar's tiered
structure for future infractions of the rules?
[...]
> It's my fault, BTW, that the wording is ambiguous. Looking back at some
> private (Adam he asked me to review his post before posting it), Adam
> originally had clearly an either-or choice (all or other), but when I
> suggested three choices (all or cad or other), it got into ambiguous
> territory because of the strong overlap. My bad.
Yes, but you learned from it. :-)
> BTW, the suggestion of separating "would you personally be happier if XYZ
> happened" from "should XYZ happen" was mine too, but the theory there was to
> ask the "would you personally..." question first, then publish the results,
> then ask the "should..." question after the results of the first question
> were tallied. (People sometimes tend toward "status quo tameness" on
> "should"-style questions when they don't know how other people feel.)
I used to wonder why polls were often so skewed until I started wondering who
was really asking the questions.
> One interesting unforseen artifact of presenting "would you personally enjoy
> the groups more if..." against "should..." is that someone could actually
> want to (but not be able to) answer "no" to "would you personally enjoy the
> groups more if..." but "yes" to the "should" part. For example, Greg
> Majewski said, "No, you're missing out! I occasionally read his posts for a
> quick laugh or two..."[2], in which case it's conceivable that Greg may not
> in fact -enjoy- the groups more if JW's posting privileges were revoked,
> even though he may still feel that JW's privilegs -should- be revoked.
Similar to Tore's kind email back to JW, it in no way implies or communicates
his true feelings (whatever they happen to be). Yet Greg's sarcasm is duly
noted, and appreciated at times. In a way he's almost offering a positive spin
on the situation similar to a comedian who makes a living joking about "what
that Bill Clinton guy has done now". And it kinda ties in with Lar's
philosophy (paraphrasing here, perhaps badly) about the stupid being left to
the themselves.
> In other words, the "should XYZ happen" question should not we worded such
> that it can only be answered if the "would you personally enjoy the groups
> more if..." part is answered with "yes." The "should" question should be
> answerable regardless of the first question. (Hope that make sense!)
Right. Technically speaking the "would you personally enjoy the groups
more if..." method is almost like saying, "do you find it entertaining?" and
it could be interpreted by the sarcasm-mongers (among whom I stand :-) that
way.
-Tom McD.
when replying, spamcake and eggs, now $1.99 at participating Denny's.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
| (...) Ahh, but #2 and #5 do achieve different results! In #2, the hope is that if (a) doesn't pass, then perhaps (b) or (c) still might. In #3, if (a) doesn't pass, then that's it...all or nothing. * In #2, you're saying, "Yes, I would personally (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
